Ah, now I see - thanks for clarifying. Yes historically I do not know how much each set-back to nuclear mattered. I can see that e.g. constantly changing regulation, for example during builds (which I think Isabelle actually mentioned) could cause a significant hurdle for continuing build-out. Here I would defer to other experts like you and Isabelle.

Porting this over to "we might over regulate AI too", I am realizing it is actually unclear to me whether people who use the "nuclear is over regulated" example means the literal same "historical" thing could happen to AI:
--- We put in place constantly changing regulation on AI
--- This causes large training runs to be stopped mid way
--- In the end this makes AI uncompetitive with humans and the AI never really takes off
--- Removing regulation is not able to kick start the industry, as talent has left and we no longer know how to build large language models cost effectively

Writing this I still think I stand by my point that there are much better examples in terms of regulation holding progress back (speeding up vaccine development actually being such an EA cause area, human challenge trials etc.). I can lay out the arguments for why this is so if helpful. But it is basically something like "there is probably much more path dependency in nuclear compared to AI or pharma".

Good question. I agree: people in EA who’ve actually worked on nuclear don’t usually claim over-regulation is the only or even dominant driver of the cost/buildout problem.

What I’m reacting to is more the “hot take” version that shows up in EA-adjacent podcasts — often as an analogy when people talk about AI policy: “look at nuclear, it got over-regulated and basically died, so don’t do that to AI.” In that context it’s not argued carefully, it’s just used as a rhetorical example, and (to me) it’s a pretty lossy / misleading compression of what’s going on.

So I’m not trying to call out serious nuclear work in EA — I’m mostly sharing the Clearer Thinking episode as a good “orientation reset” because it keeps pointing back to what the binding constraints plausibly are, with regulation as one (maybe not even the main) piece of a complex situation.

Also possible I’m misremembering some of the specific instances — I haven’t kept notes — but I’ve heard the framing enough that it started to rub me the wrong way.

And I’m genuinely curious where you land on the “regulatory reform is necessary” point: do you think the key thing is removing regulation, changing it, or adding policy/market design (e.g. electricity market reform / stable revenue mechanisms / valuing clean firm power)? I’m currently leaning toward “markets/revenue model is the real lever”, but I’m not confident. 

One thing I loved reading was a model of Sweden’s total system cost with vs without nuclear (incl. stuff like transmission build-out). It suggested fairly similar overall cost in both worlds — but the nuclear-heavy system leaned more on established tech (less batteries, etc., and I don’t remember if demand response was included).

My read is that the real challenge is: even if total system costs are comparable, how do you actually allocate those costs and rewards in something resembling a market so the “good” system gets built? (Unless you go much more "total state-owned super regulated" and basically nationalising the whole thing.)

Good question — I think it’s mostly untrue as commonly used. It implies regulation is the main bottleneck, but as the podcast lays out, there are likely much better levers for driving down cost. So it’s both misleading and counterproductive as a talking point, even if you’re broadly pro-nuclear (which I and the podcast guest are).

This is genuinely incredibly impressive — a proof point that a small, dedicated team can create meaningful x-risk reduction impact through "policy" (e.g. if scientific consensus is a precursor to policy action). If so, subsequent progress here may also be relatively cost-effective: compared to stockpiles or hard infrastructure, the marginal public spend to adopt guidance and implement early measures could be low.

Also: I think this is extra impressive because my (anecdotal) experience is that many people in mainstream bio who hear “mirror bio” dismiss it as a non-issue — so shifting scientific consensus here seems like a significant achievement.

I’m pro-nuclear, but the commonly used EA framing of “nuclear is overregulated” seems net negative more often than not. Clearer Thinking’s new nuclear episode is one of the more epistemically rigorous discussions I’ve heard in EA-adjacent spaces (and Founders Pledge has also done nuanced work).

Nuclear is worth pursuing, but we should argue for it clear-eyed.

My read was that a major success was that they seem to have broad, initial agreement, even among previously bullish scientists, that we should be extremely cautious when developing the scaffolding of mirror bio, if at all. I think that is truly remarkable, borderline historic. This is agreement across national borders, scientific disciplines and the argument they put forward was not watertight - there was no definite proof that mirror bio would assuredly be catastrophic. So this consensus was built on plausible risk only. It was extremely well pulled off. It is what skeptics might easily and still do dismiss as "sci-fi".

I ran this very lightweight poll and super crudely (probably massive sampling bias) 4 out of 9 EAs residing in the US considered moving abroad.

Naïve question: Do you know if there is data on YouTube's potential to convert to highly engaged EAs that would not otherwise convert? I think YouTube is worth testing, but if there is little data already I would be interested to see anything on conversion or even proxies for it. I know 80k hrs is rigorous so they probably have some hypothesis it can work out, or maybe they have hard evidence.

I would really recommend to look into pre-schools in the Nordics. They have high sickness rates and importantly: The government pays parents to stay home with sick kids. Even a 5% reduction in absence is worth millions and the government explicitly asks for solutions to this. 

But there is more, anyone can set up a nursery, and the authorities track absence rates across pre-schools (I know, because kids who are immunocompromised get preference in pre-schools with the lowest absence rates). Setting up one's own pre-school is paid for by the state - they are called cooperatives. So one can literally possibly set up a pre-school running far-UV at almost no cost.

There is a challenge in the ethics of this: Is it ethical to do this? I have not checked but would be happy to either myself, or find someone even better positioned to figure out if this is actually possible. I know from talking to many parents that parents are extremely motivated to have their kids be sick less often. Another thing about the Nordics: It is quite evidence based and the freedom of choice for individuals has weight in government decisions - if parents are fully informed and still opt in, it might not be a problem.

Just a note that if anyone is interested in talking about this, please drop me a DM. I have some experience and think there might be something to do in this space.